Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00
Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com Tue, 02 April 2024 11:31 UTC
Return-Path: <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C8CC15170B; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 04:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=swisscom.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rx8O1gkF0ZeZ; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 04:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.swisscom.com (mailout120.swisscom.com [138.188.166.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03E27C151707; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 04:31:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.swisscom.com; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 13:31:38 +0200
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=swisscom.com; s=iscm; t=1712057499; bh=qJXiSjrP1/CxozpwoF7msvlLx9ND4dtkyor5JzSjE4Y=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To; b=OZbjEMgus0ujOzsR/B32tNVQSHuqnUWAXbTyOGIkiDDzJ8tKOGAMz79hmPKcgUcn3 EeqbD33vJKV1R+RXShEdBwa8Uu35kviJlSNkxI93YkY0fmdGob4tmfQSXu79j5CMhk SZw1oh+1+ErAVlBXAOb0Ll2Uu+tvBc/v5u4e8kJwc355FFmoQTGPR8JJaawl+eieef 0UVyAFG9EuOB13kojO7X5EbkysP6rAMQmFuVSRquJMmjZqyfjLBhzMecVh2lcfADcb LeNhbHgUctgjoM533lJ3WmAeoal7g32YepxGlCriGZwTRKCueVLQZN6H/svzakJUiO kXxbmHGV9a3mQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="----=_Part_2743972_483820452.1712057498367"
X-Mailer: Totemo_TrustMail_(Notification)
From: Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com
To: xiao.min2@zte.com.cn, draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark@ietf.org
CC: opsawg@ietf.org, 'ippm@ietf.org
Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00
Thread-Index: AQHahNv00dMZhdnwDkapPV7ZDOcY97FU1fXw
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 11:31:35 +0000
Message-ID: <c06e68a8d693490791482af8c23d5e9e@swisscom.com>
References: <20240402165757283C0VlQz4t8NA5bu-YIjTsm@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <20240402165757283C0VlQz4t8NA5bu-YIjTsm@zte.com.cn>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-CH
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_ActionId=2669c88e-aa14-4e4d-baaa-86b9bdff891c; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_ContentBits=0; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_Enabled=true; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_Method=Standard; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_Name=C2 Internal; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_SetDate=2024-04-02T11:20:59Z; MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_SiteId=364e5b87-c1c7-420d-9bee-c35d19b557a1;
x-originating-ip: [10.45.68.228]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Trustmail: processed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/xYERH_4qlCgrvowdtLeq7Nu0wIs>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/opsawg/>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 11:31:50 -0000
Dear Xiao, I agree that the description and the additional information does not provide information to distinguish between ingressInterface, egressInterface and ingressPhysicalInterface, egressPhysicalInterface However from an implementation perspective I have observed that in all cases ingressInterface and egressInterface refer to logical and ingressPhysicalInterface and egressPhysicalInterface to physical interfaces. Where ingressInterfaceType and egressInterfaceType, which references to https://www.iana.org/assignments/ianaiftype-mib/ianaiftype-mib, is describing what type of interface it is. I would expect in a LAG configuration that the lag interface is ingressInterface resp. egressInterface and the member interfaces are ingressPhysicalInterface resp. egressPhysicalInterface. I hope that helps. Best wishes Thomas From: OPSAWG <opsawg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of xiao.min2@zte.com.cn Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 10:58 AM To: draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark@ietf.org Cc: opsawg@ietf.org; 'ippm@ietf.org Subject: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 Be aware: This is an external email. Hi authors, At the request of Giuseppe, I had a read on draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00. There are IPFIX IEs ingressInterface, egressInterface, ingressPhysicalInterface and egressPhysicalInterface, is there an IE indicating a LAG interface? Best Regards, Xiao Min
- [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 xiao.min2
- Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 Thomas.Graf
- Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 xiao.min2
- Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 Thomas.Graf
- Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 xiao.min2
- Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [OPSAWG] draft-gfz-opsawg-ipfix-alt-mark-00 xiao.min2